Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

This one is fun.

I think that as stated the thing that leads to a paradox is that "bread is better than nothing". Bread is 'good' but it isn't better than nothing. Things can be 'nuetral', 'good' and 'better' and "nothing" is not a thing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

Zero and one can be ranked because they have relative value. Null can't be ranked since it's valueless. This is a paradox because people confuse zero with null; zero is a value while null is an absence of value.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

Zero and one can be ranked because they have relative value. Null can't be ranked since it's valueless. This is a paradox because people confuse zero with null; zero is a value while null is an absence of value.

Yeah, that's along the lines of what I am saying. Bread is not better than nothing because nothing is null and things can't be compared to null.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

yeah, this is no paradox. There isn't just two states: Good and Not-Good. there's a huge range of things that are SortofGood, Okay, Bad. You know what i mean? the "nothing" in the statement "Nothing is better than eternal bliss" doesnt refer to the "lack of anything" it means "eternal bliss is better than everything" so its just another play on words, not a true paradox

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

This is where the English language is limited. Saying nothing is better than eternal bliss means there is no thing that is better. Saying bread is better than nothing means bread is better than having nothing to eat. Now, if everyone had the ability to think in, say, latin then this wouldn't even be a paradox. Darn our language is silly.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

It can really be solved with a simple equation cant it? I think it might go something like this:

A common misconception people might have is that Eternal Bliss=Nothing, but Bread> Nothing, therefore Bread> Eternal Bliss;

but thats wrong because "What is better than Eternal Bliss? Nothing." and that would lead people to believe that Nothing is better... than Eternal Bliss, but again thats wrong because "What is better than Eternal Bliss? Nothing." So nothing is the equivalent of Eternal Bliss, so Eternal Bliss has no equal or better, so it will always be better than Nothing; Eternal Bliss>Nothing, and since Bread > Nothing then; Eternal Bliss must = Bread, but nothing is equal to Eternal Bliss, therefore:

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

The fact that I chose 0, 1, 11 is irrelevant, ultimately it states the same, bread is greater than nothing and less than bliss...

This is slightly flawed, if you are going to give bread and bliss a value, then what value do you give them? You chose 1 and 11. I saw that you said that 1 and 11 are irrelivant, but they are relevant to an extant. You chose those numbers to prove your thinking, but I could use those same numbers the other way and have bread as 11 and bliss as 1. Nothing says what they should be, so cannot give them a value.

Also, I'm sure most of you noticed that the play on words IS the riddle. You guys are saying that nothing is being used seperately, which is true. But it will still have the same definition. Eternal bliss is a state of being. Bread is a physical object. So you guys are saying that from the given information, you can see what was meant. So tell me, what do I mean when I say, "I've got nothing."? Do I mean I don't know the answer to a question or problem, or am I saying I have no material? You have to assume that all times "nothing" is mentioned, it has the same value as all other times it's mentioned because nothing tells you what precicely is meant.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

This is a version of the old epicurean philosophical problem of equating a moral value with pleasure. For example: If I derive more pleasure (bliss) from picking my nose than from reading a great book then picking my nose is a more moral and valuable activity than reading a great book. Of course that is nonsense. The question is framed incorrectly. The question should be: What brings eternal bliss? Doing the right thing or enjoying simple bread?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Guest

This is not a paradox. It's comparing a noun to a quantity. It is like saying "What is better, a a tree or zero." It's a play on words, but it's not a paradox. Another way of looking at it is this: "Everything is worse than eternal bliss, and a piece of bread is not better than everything."